“It is Normal to Dismiss U.S. Attorneys” and Other Myths
One of our readers took issue with the US Attorneys “scandal” as a non-story. I told them that it is a story and here is another nail in the non-story coffin. The argument, as I understand it, is that since Clinton dismissed all but one of 41’s U.S.A’s and Reagan did a similar purge upon taking office that this purge is pretty much standard operating procedure. The data would suggest otherwise. Congressional Research has produced a report detailing all US Attorneys that have left office before their 4 year term was up. The jury is still out on 3 (of 54) but the vast majority left of their own accord for promotions or a change in scenery like the private sector. That left 5 that were dismissed by the President. 3 of the 5 were removed because of some personal transgression (one bit a stripper at a topless bar) The other 2 had some conflict with Reagan, and one of them was later convicted over the conflict. It is a fascinating read and gives you some insight as to how different these dismissals are from “normal.”
Tags: National Republicans
(one bit a stripper at a topless bar)
He last name wasn’t Atkins was it?
But seriously, thanks for this post. That Republican talking point was getting on my nerves.
I don’t think it is normal; I just don’t think it is as big of a deal as it is getting credit for and I think the abuse of the patriot act has been wrongly pushed to the background.
I can see why many people are upset with Bush & Co. He is, however, acting well within his constitutional powers.
Saying that does not, of course, make it right or the best thing to do. Along the same lines, just saying that the President is firing executive branch officials for political reasons does not make it a bad thing per se. We the people do not have an opportunity to vote for many highly influential executive branch officials. We did, however, elect George W. and by doing so, this country voted for his agenda. If members of his cabinet or other officials he appointed are not keeping in line with his agenda, then they are not keeping in line with the will of the voters.
I realize this argument is much stronger regarding officials like the head of the EPA or other large agencies, and I realize the US attorneys are supposed to be some what neutral, but whose neutral? Prosecutors are just like politicians, with there own ideas of what is right and wrong. Again, we don’t get a chance to vote for these attorneys. So, the people of this country in 2004 voted that George W’s concept of right and wrong was the proper agenda.
This is the problem with having such a bloated federal government. No one is accountable and people don’t realize the consequences of the presidential election. People barely realize how important the Supreme Court nominations are, let alone US Attorney appointments. Yet, i guarantee our next presidential election will come down to hyperbolic arguments regarding abortion, terrorism, and taxes.
We have the power to elect presidents, senators, representatives, etc., and we should not complain when we don’t like the outcome. (I mean this in a narrow sense.)
The abuse of the patriot act, however, involves duly elected and appointed officials undeniably abusing the trust of the people. The patriot act passed because the people elected officials who voted for it. I have a big problem when these officials are ignoring the letter of the law and disregarding the will of the people.
I do find the US attorney story interesting, but along the same lines as the Anna Nicole Smith death.
What’s interesting is that in the whole time period only one US Atty died in office. Seriously, this isn’t a big deal, and I’m curious as to why you don’t want to pursue the FBI’s overuse of National Security letters. I’d have thought you’d be all over that?
I’m sure bc and G Rex will correct me in no uncertain terms, but aren’t they saying “Why is everyone paying attention to the symptoms and not the disease?”
The Bush Justice Dept. sought to gain political advantage for the Republican Party by using the patriot act to fire US.A’s who would not pursue bogus political investigations. That is not only a big story, but it is also something that should result in a long prison sentence for both Bush and Gonzales.
Is it me? What about this is so hard to understand?
doctornick:
there is no way this could possibly lead to jail for Bush or Gonzales (other than they now feared perjury charge [que ominous music]), which is exactly why i am not up in arms about this.
This story just reminds me of people getting upset over things like 1) the fact that the president has the constitutional power to 21,000 more troops to Iraq and there is no way Congress can really stop him short of cutting funding (though even doing that wouldn’t have any effect for 6-12 months) or even 2) when people got upset that Gore won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote in 2000.
I just fear that people will be willing to throw the baby out with the bath water, just because we have a dolt for a CIC right now.
Our constitution works, and regarding the problem of a lack of oversight and accountability for government agencies, i must say that problem was created and is worsened by democrats and, recently, faux-republicans.
While i do think there is a disease in Washington, D.C. and it is affecting Dems and Republicans, I just don’t think this particular symptom is life threatening. This is a hang nail, while the abuse of my support of the patriot act is a cancer which goes beyond the day to day squabbling between our self-appointed “two parties.”
I also want to add that my criticism of this being such a big story is not directed at this blog particularly. Rather it is directed at the media in general. You guys are free to concentrate on whatever you want.
I just don’t want to be one of those idiots that writes-in to the News Journal to complain that they put local news on the front cover instead of a national story. The only reason I get the news journal is for the local news, everything else i get from the internet. If you are relying on the News Journal for the national stories, you are at least a day and half behind.
The firings are getting all the press, but in legal terms the story isn’t the firings, it’s the evasion of Senate confirmation for the new appointees. The Patriot Act was abused.
It is the reasons — overtly political — why these attorneys were fired that keeps this story alive. Several of these were let go largely because they were not trying to bend, twist or subvert the law just to suit the immediate political needs of their team. Other than for change of administrations, that kind of removal is incredibly unusual, as the Congressional Research study proves. Although these positions are political appointments with all of the baggage that goes with that, these are still key law enforcement officers and some stability there (as well as adherence to the law) is counted on. Really, do you think if Carol Lam had Democrats in the spot she had Duke Cunningham and others that she would be on the list?
Certainly these people serve at the pleasure of the President, but we have every right to expect that the President will not be playing politics with something so crucial as law enforcement. AND attempting to misuse the Patriot Act to further that politicization. And that is the point of that repub talking point re: Clinton — they attempt to show that everyone does politics with their USDAs.
Yglesias also notes that he was told that he took too many days off. The guy is in the Naval reserves, doing 40+ days (he puts in more days than typical) per year and the folks at DoJ tell him that is a firing offense. In the real world, firing a reservist because the mandatory duty takes too many days is not legal. I wish I could be surprised that the Support The Troops or Else crew don’t find even this bit to be outrageous.
http://www.slate.com/id/2161803/nav/tap1/
Interesting article. Doesn’t address everybody’s concerns, but interesting.